Joseph Kerekes' Attorneys have filed briefs in opposition to the Prosecution's motion to strike Defendants Omnibus Pretrial Motion, and in opposition to the Prosecution's motion to disqualify Atty. Demetrius Fannick from representing Harlow Cuadra.
I'll try to have more information later today.
Update @ 5:13 PM: The Times Leader picks up the story and reports that Attorneys for Joseph Kerekes said there is no conflict with attorney Demetris Fannick defending suspect Harlow Cuadra.
Update @ 03/04/08 4:53 AM: Offering a little more detail, the Times Leader continues the story with... homicide suspect Joseph Kerekes said he has no problem with attorney Demetrius Fannick defending suspect Harlow Cuadra.
Kerekes and Cuadra are awaiting trial in the January 2007 slaying of Bryan Kocis inside his Dallas Township home. Fannick was recently hired to defend Cuadra.
But Luzerne County prosecutors sought to have Fannick disqualified from that role because he had previously met with Kerekes. That, they said, creates a conflict with him representing Cuadra.
But in Monday’s court papers, Kerekes’ attorneys, John Pike, Mark Bufalino and Shelley Centini, said no such conflict exists.
The attorneys said Kerekes was never a client of Fannick and all of the discussions between the two pertained to the possibility of Fannick defending Kerekes.
“Those conversations were reportedly limited to the retainer fee,” the attorneys wrote.
Kerekes, they said, never discussed any details of the case with Fannick.
“To date, the Commonwealth has failed to provide evidence that any confidential information was provided by (Kerekes) to (Fannick) during any of their meetings,” the attorneys wrote. “Kerekes chooses to waive any potential conflict of interest, should any exist, and permit (Fannick) to continue to represent (Cuadra) in this matter.”
The response comes days after Fannick, too, said he should be allowed to stay on the case. He said there are no issues to create a conflict. His conversations with Kerekes, he said, were very limited, mainly revolving around legal fees.
Court of Common Pleas Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. will rule on the issue after a hearing Wednesday.
But Luzerne County prosecutors sought to have Fannick disqualified from that role because he had previously met with Kerekes. That, they said, creates a conflict with him representing Cuadra.
But in Monday’s court papers, Kerekes’ attorneys, John Pike, Mark Bufalino and Shelley Centini, said no such conflict exists.
The attorneys said Kerekes was never a client of Fannick and all of the discussions between the two pertained to the possibility of Fannick defending Kerekes.
“Those conversations were reportedly limited to the retainer fee,” the attorneys wrote.
Kerekes, they said, never discussed any details of the case with Fannick.
“To date, the Commonwealth has failed to provide evidence that any confidential information was provided by (Kerekes) to (Fannick) during any of their meetings,” the attorneys wrote. “Kerekes chooses to waive any potential conflict of interest, should any exist, and permit (Fannick) to continue to represent (Cuadra) in this matter.”
The response comes days after Fannick, too, said he should be allowed to stay on the case. He said there are no issues to create a conflict. His conversations with Kerekes, he said, were very limited, mainly revolving around legal fees.
Court of Common Pleas Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. will rule on the issue after a hearing Wednesday.
